3 ms·

Russian roulette is safe! I played once and didn't die!

• ethbr1 2y ago
  The point that half this comment section is missing is this is the sort of thing we want to encourage. The US spent extra money funding two separate vendors. One vendor exhibited a high level of risk in their first return. The astronauts were able to be returned on the second, already proven vendor. That's a great place to be in! The alternative, having to return astronauts on a high risk vehicle because it's the only option, is not a place we ever want to be in.
  • inglor_cz 2y ago
    What is not great is the fact that vendor 1 exhibited a string of concerning anomalies and accidents. Vendor 1 may be institutionally unfit to be a leg on which the US space program stands.
    • nick3443 2y ago
      Year reading the starliner wikipedia page was eye opening, every single test phase had issues, and repeated issues over a long period with the same systems (thrusters) is really damning.
  • dotancohen 2y ago
    > One vendor exhibited a high level of risk in their first return. > The astronauts were able to be returned on the second, already proven vendor. Anyone reading this five years ago would be absolutely shocked to discover which vendor is which.
    • ethbr1 2y ago
      The most underrated and impressive achievement of SpaceX, IMHO, has been their designing missions for higher technical risk while managing safety impacts. It's easy(ish) to go fast and break things. It's much harder to go fast and break things, except also never break things when it really matters.